Adherence to preprints’ publication in Dentistry by Brazilian researchers

Aim: The publication in preprint format is an interesting open science practice that allows fast outreach to the society of new scientific findings. However, no previous study has investigated how much this practice has been adopted by dental scientists. Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate the adherence to the preprint publication format by a sample of Brazilian researchers. Methods: Searches were carried out, in September 2021, on the MedArxiv, OSF, and SciELO preprints platforms, looking for publications in preprint format by all Brazilian researchers of graduate programs in dentistry (n=211) who were productivity fellows in 2021 (PQ). Searches were performed by typing the authors’ full names and the possible variations, as indicated by each author's curriculum, openly available on the Lattes website platform. The data were analyzed through the Friedman test, with the Durbin-Conover post-hoc (α=0.05) in order to compare the three platforms. Spearman's correlation test (α=0.05) was performed to assess the possible correlations between the number of preprints and age, career stage, and the researcher’s scholarship level variables. Results: From the 211 researchers searched, 22 (10.4%) published 1 (one) preprint on at least one platform. A total of 39 published preprints were found at MedArxiv (n=19, 48.7%), SciELO preprints (n=18, 46.2%), and OSF platforms (n=2, 5.1%). There was no difference between the adherence to MedArxiv and SciELO preprints (p = 0.731). However, the OSF platform presented the lowest adherence, statistically differing from MedArxiv (p=0.008) and SciELO preprints platforms (p=0.003). In addition, no correlation was found between the publication of preprints and the researcher's age (p=0.128), career stage (p=0.248), or the researcher's scholarship level (p=0.661). Conclusion: It was possible to observe a low adherence to the preprints publications by Brazilian researchers’ productivity fellows of graduate programs in dentistry

Making science public: a review of journalists’ use of Open Access research [version 2; peer review: 5 approved]

Science journalists are uniquely positioned to increase the societal impact of open research outputs by contextualizing and communicating findings in ways that highlight their relevance and implications for non-specialist audiences. Yet, it is unclear to what degree journalists use open research outputs, such as open access publications or preprints, in their reporting; what factors motivate or constrain this use; and how the recent surge in openly available research seen during the COVID-19 pandemic has affected this. This article examines these questions through a review of relevant literature published from 2018 onwards—particularly literature relating to the COVID-19 pandemic—as well as seminal articles outside the search dates. We find that research that explicitly examines journalists’ engagement with open access publications or preprints is scarce, with existing literature mostly addressing the topic tangentially or as a secondary concern, rather than a primary focus. Still, the limited body of evidence points to several factors that may hamper journalists’ use of these outputs and thus warrant further exploration. These include an overreliance on traditional criteria for evaluating scientific quality; concerns about the trustworthiness of open research outputs; and challenges using and verifying the findings. We also find that, while the COVID-19 pandemic encouraged journalists to explore open research outputs such as preprints, the extent to which these explorations will become established journalistic practices remains unclear. Furthermore, we note that current research is overwhelmingly authored and focused on the Global North, and the United States specifically. We conclude with recommendations for future research that attend to issues of equity and diversity, and more explicitly examine the intersections of open access and science journalism